Was Padre Pio the stigmatist monk a sexual abuser and a pervert? If he was then
it was not and is not the first time if the Catholic Church made a saint out of
a devout man like that.

John XXIII got feedback on Padre Pio thanks to the Vatican investigator
Monsignor Parente. He wrote about how the Monsignor was devastated to find that
Pio was sexually unchaste. “I am sorry for PP, who has a soul to be saved, and I
pray for him intensely. What happened – that is, the discovery because of the
films – si vera sunt quae referentur (if it is true what they say) – of [Pio's]
intimate and incorrect relations with the women who constitute his Pretorian
guard, which even now stands firm around him, leads one to think of a vast
disaster of souls which has been diabolically set up to discredit the Holy
Church in the world, and especially in Italy. In the calmness of my spirit I
humbly persist in believing that the Lord faciat cum tentatione provandum (is
doing this as a test of faith), and that from this immense deception will come a
teaching of clarity and health for a great many.”

The alleged evidence from secret recordings that Pio was having sex has been
lost. John XXIII is believed to have taken it seriously. It is thought by many
that the evidence is valid for nobody would dare say a man with a bleeding body
whether the bleeds were magic or self-inflicted was that naughty. If he had
sexual partners then they were severely manipulated or he was not as deformed by
cuts as he wanted people to think.

Monsignor Carlo Maccari was the chief force behind the suspicions about Pio's
sexual sins. He had the microphones planted in the men's confessional boxes and
in the rooms where Pio met with the public. The Monsignor probably was surprised
that Pio seemed to be after women!! Monsignor Carlo Maccari on his deathbed
supposedly repented for suspecting Pio of unchastity! We have only the word of
Pio's cronies for that!

There were allegations of sexual abuse committed by Pio against vulnerable women
and not all of these reports can be debunked though some of them were. You would
expect that for when an abuser is active some liars will leap on the bandwagon.

And this debunking speaks more of faith in those who conducted the investigation
and what they were told rather than in their being correct. Anybody that knows
people who have been in trouble with the law will know how reliable that is and
the law is so easily manipulated by people withholding information! I’m being
sarcastic here.

He possibly didn’t do anything but how do you know? The man did slap people –
the crime of assault (page 153, The Book of Miracles). When you would do that
you would sexually grope if you were that way inclined.

And Pio’s own defence though unquestionably honest at times may not have been
all the time – for the man was definitely dodgy. Mud sticks and it should stick
in this case.

Archbishop Gagliardi is blamed by pro-Pio people as having started most of the
rumours which strains credulity because a powerful and intelligent Churchman can
find better ways to ruin somebody than that way. A false accusation of heresy
would have done the trick provided the stage was set so that at best it could
not be disproven and would not cause a rumpus that would lead to the civil
courts. Why did the Archbishop who would have known there was a culture of sex
abuse cover-up in the Church try to open a can of worms by acccusing Pio of
sexual abuse unless he was sure it was true? If he wanted to lie there was an
easier way.

Other Pios have been abusers.

A New Pio

Father Gino Burresi is someone alive today who makes exactly the same claims as
Pio. Yet it is known that this man is not a saint. And charges of sexual abuse
have been made against him and the Vatican has banned his ministry. Gino still
has his supporters though. When Gino could get away with his claims for so long
today how much easier could it have been for Pio who lived decades ago in a
world where communication and science was less efficient to do that? And Pio was
more secluded than Gino as well which helped a lot. The only reason we know that
Gino is not a saint is because he (unlike Pio) got caught in such a way that
there was no room for anybody to come along to credibly distort the facts and
leave him smelling of roses.